Point of Law : Presence of the transferee pendent lite is necessary for complete and effective adjudication of the suit and issues involved therein and the court below has exercised its discretion in the matter, which does not require any interference under Article 115, C.P.C.

JUDGMENT :

Rajan Roy, J.

1. This is a revision filed by the plaintiff under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging an order dated 31.10.2019 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Lucknow, allowing an application bearing No. A-47 filed by the transferees pendent lite for impleadment.

2. The application A-47 has been allowed by the Court below on the finding that the applicants (respondent nos. 3 and 4 in the revision) are the bona fide purchasers whose presence is necessary in order to enable court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit.

3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that respondent no. 1 and 2 (defendant nos. 1 and 2 in the suit) entered into an agreement to sell in respect to the suit property on 8.5.2015 with the revisionist-plaintiff, but failed to perform their part of the agreement, consequently a suit for specific performance of contract was filed by the revisionist on 5.10.2016 before the court below at Lucknow. The civil court issued summons which were served upon defendant nos. 1 and 2 on 20.10.2016. Thereafter, i.e., during pendency of the said suit bearing No. 1857 of 2016, Anil Kumar Singh v. Pappu & anr., defendant nos. 1 and 2 (respondent nos. 1 and 2 in the revision) executed a sale-deed in favour of defendant nos. 3 and 4 (respondent nos. 3 and 4 in the revision) on 23.11.2016 which, according to the revisionists’ counsel was hit by section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882. The defendant nos. 1 and 2 filed their written statement on 21.2.2018 and issues were framed by the Civil Court on 15.5.2018. On 1.12.2018 P.W. 1 was examined. He was cross-examined by the defendant nos. 1 and 2 on 13.12.2018. On 9.1.2019 P.W.2 was examined. He was cross-examined on 19.10.2019. In the interregnum when the matter was fixed for examination of Defence witness 2, respondent nos. 3 and 4 filed an application bearing no. A-47 for their impleadment on 5.7.2019 stating that they had purchased the suit property vide sale-deed dated 23.11.2016. It is this application which has been allowed by the impugned order dated 31.10.2019.

4. Contention of Sri N.K. Seth, learned counsel for the revisionist was that the plaintiff being the dominus litis cannot be compelled to implead stranger in the suit, especially a transferee pendent lite as neither any relief has been sought against him nor is he a necessary or proper party in the matter. It was his submission that the issues involved in the suit are between the plaintiff and defendant nos. 1 and 2 who had entered into an Agreement-to-sell and the plaintiffs are claiming their rights against the said defendants. In this regard he has placed reliance upon a decision of this court in the case of Gurmit Singh Bhatia v. Kiran Kant Robinson & ors., 2019 SCC OnLine SC 912 and another decision reported in (2020) 14 SCC 392, Mohamed Hussain Gulam Ali Shariffi v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay & ors.

5. The other argument advanced by him was that the objections raised by the revisionist before the Civil Court were not even taken note of and without a proper consideration of relevant aspects of the matter the impugned order has been passed. He submitted that even the sale-deed was not annexed with the application by the respondent nos. 3 and 4. The application for impleadment did not even mention as to how and when they came to know about the pendency of the suit. Their impleadment at the stage of examination of defence witness 2 was prejudicial to the interest of the plaintiff and would delay the suit. The applicants were not bona fide purchasers. Purchase itself was hit by the doctrine of lis pendens. Sri Seth relied upon the decision reported in (2008) 7 SCC 144, Usha Sinha v. Dina Ram & ors.; and another decision reported in (2010) 6 Alld. LJ 425, Ram Swaroop Singh & ors. v. Karan Singh & ors.

6. On the other hand, Sri M.A. Khan, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 3 and 4, i.e., the transfer